Denial of exemption claim - compounded rubber - demand of duty on Captive consumption during the transitional period - Notification granting exemption was rescinded for a period of few days - Held that:- Compounded rubber was also rescinded by the same Notification dated 1.3.94 and reintroduced in the same manner vide another Notification issued on 28.3.1994, ratio of W.P.I.L . Ltd. case [2005 (2) TMI 137 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] shall squarely apply to the present case as well. As a result, on .....

ts in brief - the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tyre and tube of rubber for bicycles and cycle rikshaws . The dispute pertains to the manufacture of 'compounded rubber' which comes under Heading No. 40.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and is used captively by the appellant in the manufacture of tyre and tubes. It is a matter of record that the said 'compounded rubber' was totally exempt from payment of excise duty under a Notification that was issued way ba .....

t was also withdrawn. However, within few days thereof i.e. 28.3.1994, fresh Notification No.74 /94-CE dated 28.3.1994 was issued, resuscitating the earlier Notification No. 152/87-CE dated 25.5.1987. As a result in respect of compounded rubber excise duty was again exempted. The effect of the aforesaid Notification was that only for a principal period from 1.3.94 to 27.3.94, there was no exemption duty in respect of 'compounded rubber'. In these appeals, we are concerned with this very .....

that the Notification No.64 /94 CE dated 1.3.94 by which the exemption was withdrawn was erroneously issued insofar as compounded rubber is concerned, and after realizing this mistake, the remedial step was taken by the Government by restoring the exemption vide Notification dated 28.3.1994. On that basis it was argued that the Notification No.74 /94-CE dated 28.3.1994 was merely clarificatory in nature and should be applied retrospectively. In nutshell, the submission was that the exemption co .....

as challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has also upheld the order of the Commissioner. Though Mr. Lakshmikumaran , learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has advanced his submission on the merits of the case as well, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to deal with the merits of the case, inasmuch as these appeals are liable to succeed on the first defence , as noted above, raised by the appellants. We may point out here that the issue has not come up before this Cou .....

Notification in respect of the part of power driven pumps was also included as rescinded. Thereafter, the same item was again exempted by Notification No.95 /94-CE issued on April 25, 1994 . In this manner, insofar as parts of power driven pumps are concerned, there was no exemption in respect thereof for the period from 1.3.94 to 24.4.1994. The assessee in the aforesaid case took the same plea by arguing that since the decision of the exemption vide Notification dated 1.3.94 was an inadvertent .....